[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sudha Sharma Dead Through Legal ... vs Vivek Kumar on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61942
1 MCC-3308-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 28th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 3308 of 2025
SMT SUDHA SHARMA DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS SMT
SANGEETA SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
VIVEK KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramakant Awasthi - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Atul Anand Awasthi - Senior Advocate with Shri Rupesh Singh Thakur -
Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.19139/2025 which is an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this MCC.
2. The reason assigned in the application for condonation of delay is as
under:-
"The mother of the applicants has preferred appeal before this Court
and the present applicants were unaware of the pendency of the case. She
came to know about pendency of the case when on 30.06.2025, she received
notice from the revenue Code. Thereafter, she seeks advise from the counsel
and search the case and found that the case has been dismissed for want of
prosecution and thereafter, she preferred instant application for restoration."
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that that because of the
bonafide mistake on the part of counsel for the applicants, applicants should
not be made to suffer. Counsel of applicants tender unconditional apology
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61942
2 MCC-3308-2025
for the lapse on his part & submits that applicants should not be made to
suffer because of bonafide lapse on his part and submits that due to aforesaid
reason, delay of 3981 days occurred in filing this restoration application.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I.A. No.19139/2025 may be allowed and
delay in filing this MCC be condoned and this MCC may also be allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the application. It is
further submitted that this MCC/restoration application is filed by delay of
10 years and 09 months and there is no specific explanation given in the
application for condonation of delay, therefore, there is no sufficient ground
to restore S.A. No.404/2001 in its original number. In these circumstances,
this MCC be dismissed. Counsel appearing for respondents also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another; (2007) 2 SCC322.
5. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Perusal of the record shows that S.A. No.404/2001 was listed on
15.09.2014, but none had appeared on behalf of the appellant and, therefore,
it got dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. In such a circumstances, the explanation occurred for condonation of
delay of about 10 years and 09 months (3981 days) in filing this MCC
appears to be concocted and is not acceptable. Even otherwise, application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is very sketchy and does not give
reasonable explanation of delay of 3981 days.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs.
Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61942
3 MCC-3308-2025
448 has observed that the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims
on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who
are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights". The aforesaid
judgment has further been followed in the case of Majji Sannemma
@ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.
9. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay of 3981
days in filing of MCC, I.A. No.19139/2025, an application for condonation
of delay deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
10 . Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
Rao
